06-20-2014
• http://www.washingtonsblog.com
Wikipedia
notes that B-2s were "originally designed primarily as a nuclear
bomber," and that "The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large
air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration."

Some historical background is necessary here, so that a reader can
understand why this is happening — the switch to an objective of
actually winning a nuclear war (as opposed to deterring one). One cannot
understand what's happening now in Ukraine without knowing this bigger
picture.

(This account is written under the assumption that the reader already
knows some of the allegations it contains, but not all of them, and
that the reader will click on the link wherever a given allegation
requires documentation and support.)

Consequently, for example, a recent CNN Poll has
found that Americans' fear of Russia has soared within just the past
two years. Our news media present a type of news "reporting" that places
Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, into a very bad light, even when it's unjustified by the facts.

The situation now is thus rather similar to that right before World War I,
when the aristocracy in America decided that a pretext had to be
created for our going to war against Germany. That War had already
started in Europe on 28 July 1914, and President Wilson wanted to keep
the U.S. out of it, but we ultimately joined it on the side of J.P.
Morgan and Company. This was documented in detail in an important 1985
book, Britain, America and the Sinews of War, 1914-1918, which was well summarized in Business History Review,
by noting that: "J.P. Morgan & Co. served as Britain's financial
and purchasing agent, and the author makes especially good use of the
Morgan Grenfell & Co. papers in London to probe that relationship.
Expanding British demand for U.S. dollars to pay for North American
imports made the politics of foreign exchange absolutely central to
Anglo-American relations. How to manage those politics became the chief
preoccupation of Her Majesty's representatives in the United States,"
and most especially of Britain's financial and purchasing agent in the
U.S.

In 1917, after almost two years of heavy anti-German propaganda in
the U.S. press that built an overwhelming public support for our joining
that war against Germany, Congress found that, in March 1915, "J.P.
Morgan interests had bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and
inserted their own editors, in order to control the media" so that
we'd join the war on England's side. Whereas back then, it was Germany's
leader who was being goaded into providing a pretext for us to declare
war against his country, this time it's Russia's leader (Putin) who is
being demonized and goaded into providing such a pretext, though Putin
(unlike Germany's Kaiser) has thus far refrained from providing the
pretext that Obama constantly warns us that he will (a Russian invasion
of Ukraine). Consequently, Obama's people are stepping up the pressure upon Putin by bombing the areas of neighboring Ukraine where Russian speakers live,
who have family across the border inside Russia itself. Just a few more
weeks of this, and Putin's public support inside Russia could palpably
erode if Putin simply lets the slaughter proceed without his sending
troops in to defend them and to fight back against Kiev's (Washington's
surrogate's) bombing-campaign. This would provide the pretext that Obama
has been warning about.

I also have reported on "Why Ukraine's Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance." The
article argued that "This civil war is of massive historical
importance, because it re-starts the global Cold War, this time
no longer under the fig-leaf rationalization of an ideological battle
between 'capitalism' versus 'communism,' but instead more raw, as a
struggle between, on the one hand, the U.S. and West European
aristocracies; and, on the other hand, the newly emerging aristocracies
of Russia and of China." The conflict's origin, as recounted there, was
told in its highest detail in an article in the scholarly journal Diplomatic History,
about how U.S. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 fooled the Soviet
Union's leader Mikhail Gorbachev into Gorbachev's allowing the Cold War
to be ended without any assurance being given to the remaining rump
country, his own Russia, that NATO and its missiles and bombers won't
expand right up to Russia's doorstep and surround Russia with a
first-strike ability to destroy Russia before Russia will even have a
chance to get its own nuclear weapons into the air in order to destroy
the U.S. right back in retaliation.

That old system — "Mutually Assured Destruction" or MAD, but actually very rational from the public's perspective on both sides — is gone. The U.S. increasingly is getting nuclear primacy. Russia, surrounded by NATO nations and U.S. nuclear weapons, would be able to be wiped out before its rusty and comparatively puny military force could be mustered to respond. Whereas we are not surrounded by their weapons, they are surrounded by ours.
Whereas they don't have the ability to wipe us out before we can
respond, we have the ability to wipe them out before they'll be able to
respond. This is the reason why America's aristocracy argue that MAD is dead. An article, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War" was published in the December 2008 Physics Today,
and it concluded that, "the indirect effects ['nuclear winter'] would
likely eliminate the majority of the human population." (It would be
even worse, and far faster, than the expected harms from global
warming.) However, aristocrats separate themselves from the public, and
so their perspective is not necessarily the same as the public's. The
perspective that J.P. Morgan and Co. had in 1915 wasn't the perspective
that the U.S. public had back then, and it also wasn't the perspective
that our President, Woodrow Wilson, did back then, when we were a
democracy. But it's even less clear today that we are a democracy than
it was in 1915. In that regard, things have only gotten worse in
America.

So, President Obama is now trying to persuade EU leaders to join with
him to complete this plan to replace MAD with a first-strike nuclear
capability that will eliminate Russia altogether from the world stage.

Obama clearly means business here, and so the government that we have installed in Kiev is bombing throughout southeastern Ukraine,
in order to convince the residents there that resistance will be
futile. Part of the short-term goal here is to get Russia to absorb the
losses of all of Ukraine's unpaid debts to Russia, so that far less of Ukraine's unpaid debts to the IMF, U.S. and E.U., will remain
unpaid. It's basically an international bankruptcy proceeding, but
without an international bankruptcy court, using instead military means.
It's like creditors going to a bankrupt for repayment, and the one with
the most gunmen gets paid, while the others do not. This is the reason
why the IMF ordered the leaders in Kiev to put down the rebellion
in Ukraine's southeast. What's important to the IMF is not land, it's
the Kiev government's continued control over the assets in the rebelling
part of Ukraine — assets that will be worth something in a
privatization or sell-off to repay that debt. However, for Obama, what
is even more important than repaid debts is the continued dominance of
the U.S. dollar. Wall Street needs that.

Among other indications that the U.S. is now preparing a nuclear attack against Russia is an article on May 23rd, "U.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO Interceptor System," and also a June 10th report
from a website with good sources in Russian intelligence, which alleges
that Ukrainian President Petro "Poroshenko secretly met with … [an]
American delegation headed by the Director of … the CIA's
National Clandestine Service, Frank Archibald, which also
included former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan, the current – Raymond
Mark Davidson, Mark Buggy (CIA, Istanbul), Andrzej Derlatka, a CIA
agent in the Polish intelligence Agency, and member of CIA Kevin Duffin
who is working as senior Vice President of the insurance company Brower.
Poroshenko and Archibald signed a paper entitled an 'Agreement on
Military Cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine'"

Moreover, Obama isn't only beefing up our first-strike nuclear capability, but is also building something new, called "Prompt Global Strike," to
supplement that nuclear force, by means of "a precision
conventional weapon strike" that, if launched against Russia from
next-door Ukraine, could wipe out Russia's nuclear weapons within just a
minute or so. That might be a fallback position, for Obama, in case the
EU's leaders (other than Netherlands and perhaps one or two others)
might happen to decide that they won't participate in our planned
nuclear invasion of Russia.

Certainly, Obama means business here,
but the big question is whether he'll be able to get the leaders of
other "democratic" nations to go along with his first-strike plan.

The two likeliest things that can stop him, at this stage, would be
either NATO's breaking up, or else Putin's deciding to take a political
beating among his own public for simply not responding to our increasing
provocations. Perhaps Putin will decide that a temporary embarrassment
for him at home (for being "wimpy") will be better, even for just
himself, than the annihilation of his entire country would be. And
maybe, if Obama pushes his indubitable Superpower card too hard, he'll
be even more embarrassed by this conflict than Putin will be. After all,
things like this and this aren't
going to burnish Obama's reputation in the history books, if he cares
about that. But maybe he's satisfied to be considered to have been
George W. Bush II, just a far better-spoken version: a more charming
liar than the original. However, if things come to a nuclear invasion,
even a U.S. "victory" won't do much more for Obama's reputation than
Bush's "victory" in Iraq did for his. In fact, perhaps Americans will
then come to feel that George W. Bush wasn't America's worst President,
after all. Maybe the second half of the Bush-Obama Presidency will be
even worse than the first.